' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was proceed( against departmentally under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 on charge of willful absence from duty for a period of 01 month, 15 days 05 hours. Resultantly, vide order dated 06.08.2014, Respondent No, awarded him major penalty of "Dismissal from Service". Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred departmental appeal before Respondent No, 1, who vide order dated 21.02.2015, rejected the same Thereafter, the appellant approached this Tribunal by way of filing instant appeal on 20.03.2015.
2. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and t] learned District Attorney have been heard.
Contents of memorandum of appeal, parawise comments offered by the respondents and record as produced by the department have also been perused.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was awarded major penalty by the authority without conducting any regular enquiry, which is sheer violation of law laid down by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgments reported as 1997 SCMR 1543 and 2009 SCMR 412, wherein it has been held that "In case of awarding major penalty, a proper inquiry is to be conducted in accordance with law, where full opportunity of defence is to be provided to delinquent official/officer". He argued that verdict of the Supreme Court is a binding upon all vide Article 189 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Learned counsel further argued that absence of the appellant was neither willful nor deliberate, rather it was due to compelling circumstances as on 24.05.2014 the appellant met with an accident and his right leg was seriously injured, but unfortunately he has been awarded extreme major penalty of dismissal from service.
The learned counsel held that medical record of illness of the appellant was never considered and evaluated by the authorities and hence the appellant has been condemned unheard in violation of principle of Audi Alterm Partum. Counsel for the appellant maintained that even otherwise quantum of punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of guilt alleged to the appellant.
With the above submissions, he prayed for reinstatement of the appellant by converting the penalty of dismissal from service into a suitable lesser penalty.
4. The learned District Attorney argued that all the legal formalities were fulfilled while proceeding against the appellant. He held that conduct of the appellant remained highly objectionable and against the norms of disciplined force. The Police Department is a sensitive department, which cannot afford such like irresponsible and careless attitude of the appellant and hence he has rightly been awarded penalty of Dismissal from Service. In addition to the above submissions, learned District Attorney placed reliance on the comments submitted by the respondents.
5. Patient hearing has been given to the parties and it is inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been given quite harsh treatment. Although the charge of willful absence from duty is proved from the record as the appellant had not applied for leave and remained absent without any prior permission, however, the penalty awarded to the appellant is too harsh and it does not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct committed by him, i,e, he remained absent for 01 month, 15 days and 05 hours, due to medical reasons as is evident by the record submitted. The philosophy of punishment is based on the concept of retribution, which may be either through the method of deterrence or through reformation. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan observes in its various judgments that in service matters, extreme penalty for minor acts would defeat the reformatory concept of punishment. Reliance is placed on 2006 SCMR 60. In this view of the circumstances. The impugned orders passed by the respondents do not hold good with regard to natural justice. Therefore, the instant appeal is partially accepted and the impugned orders are modified by converting major penalty of "Dismissal from Service" into another major penalty of "Forfeiture of three years approved service". Resultantly, the appellant is reinstated into service from the date of his dismissal. However, the intervening period shall be treated as leave without pay on the principle of no work, no pay in the light of law laid down in PLJ 2011 Tr.C. (Services)
82. Disposed off.